By now it can be said that Varjo is making the world's most high-end VR headsets, and not just because they're slapping on a hefty price tag. With a core premise of 'retina resolution' that really delivers, Varjo's headsets keep getting better even as they're getting cheaper. Their visual performance offers an early glimpse of what mainstream VR headsets are unlikely to deliver for years to come. We've been following Varjo since even before the launch of their first VR headset. Every time we've glimpsed a new headset from the company, there's been clear progress in their mission to deliver the sharpest visuals of any VR headset. Varjo's latest headset, the XR-3, is no exception. During a meeting with the company in Silicon Valley I got fairly extensive hands-on time with the XR-3, both with its VR and AR capabilities. Despite being its least expensive headset yet, it's also clearly the company's best so far. [caption id="attachment_103615" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Photo by Road to VR[/caption] Cheaper but Not Cheap Granted, the company's headsets are far from anything you'd call affordable. At a whopping $5,500 (+$1,500 annually), XR-3 is the high-end of the high-end. But it's a steal compared to the prior Varjo XR headset which cost $10,000 (+$1,000 annually). Meanwhile, the VR-3 (the model without advanced passthrough or inside-out tracking) has come down to just $3,200 (+$800 annually). To be clear, these are enterprise headsets at enterprise prices, hence the annual service fee. A Better Bionic Display All of Varjo's headsets make use of what they call the 'bionic display' system which makes use of a large 'context display' for a wide field-of-view, with an overlapping 'focus display' for true retina resolution (60+ PPD) at the center of the view. That's two displays for each eye. [caption id="attachment_99409" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Image courtesy Varjo[/caption] The company's earliest prototypes proved that the company's unique display system really could deliver retina resolution at the center of the image, but it came with a handful of caveats. I used to have to make mockups (like this) to make it clear to people that only the very center of the display was retina quality and that the boundary between the focus display and the context display was quite apparent. Varjo's headsets have gotten better about this over the years, and on the XR-3, the boundary between the focus display and the context display is nearly invisible. This is thanks not only to better blending between the displays, but also because the lower fidelity context display (which provides the wide field-of-view) itself has been boosted in resolution significantly over previous models. Even if the XR-3 didn't have a focus display for retina resolution at the center of the image, the resolution of the context display alone (2,880 × 2,720) exceeds something like the Vive Pro 2 (2,448 × 2,448). It's thanks to this boost in resolution that moving your eyes away from the focus display no longer brings an obvious reduction in quality. This makes it feel much more natural to look around with your eyes in XR-3, whereas on earlier headsets it could feel like you had to train yourself not to let your eyes wander from the center of the field-of-view. This pairs nicely with an expanded overall field-of-view compared to the prior version of the headset, which jumps from 87° to 115°, according to Varjo. In practice, donning the headset reveals a higher fidelity view than I've seen in any other VR headset to date. The center of the field-of-view is truly 'retina resolution'—the screen-door effect is non-existent and there's not a hint that the center of the image is even made of pixels. [caption id="attachment_103618" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Photo by Road to VR[/caption] While the fidelity of the image is truly world class, there is one notable issue that kept me from being lost in it entirely. On XR-3 I noticed a surprising amount of pupil swim, which makes the image look wobbly as you move your head around, especially when you lock your eyes onto an object in the scene and continue to move your head. The effect was bad enough that I expect it will cause discomfort to some users who are very sensitive to motion sickness. I don't know the exact cause of the pupil swim on XR-3. It could be inherent in the lenses, or it could be a calibration issue. And while I didn't have the company's other headsets to go side-by-side with, I don't recall noticing it so clearly on prior models. Hopefully it's something that can be fixed. Continue on Page 2: Passthrough AR & Ergonomics » Passthrough AR on XR-3 [caption id="attachment_103613" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Photo by Road to VR[/caption] XR-3 isn't just for VR though. The headset includes a bevy of sensors which give it both inside-out tracking and full-color passthrough AR including LiDAR for real-time depth-sensing. While the cameras on the front of the headset don't quite match the resolution of the displays, they're definitely higher resolution than what I've seen through any other passthrough AR headset, and they cover nearly the entire field-of-view of the lenses. While pure passthrough video works very well, the headset can of course also project augmented reality visuals into the world around you. To demo this, Varjo spawned a 1:1 scale car in the room I was standing in. Combined with Ultraleap hand-tracking and the headset's LiDAR, I could reach out with my real hands to open the car's doors, and even see my real hands occluding the augmented imagery which made it feel all the more real. Granted, the edges of the hand-occlusion are still too jagged to make it all perfectly seamless. While the headset's passthrough AR capabilities are impressive (including some absolutely magic VFX tech which maps the surrounding room onto the reflections of virtual objects), I did notice a bit of latency, especially between the passthrough view of the real world and the virtual objects layered over top (ie: they didn't feel perfectly 'locked' to the same space). I may be a bit spoiled with Oculus' 'Passthrough+' tech on Quest 2, which offers a remarkably low latency experience even if the view is much lower resolution than what you can see through XR-3. XR-3 Ergonomics [caption id="attachment_103614" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Photo by Road to VR[/caption] The other big change to Varjo's XR-3 over its predecessor is the ergonomics. XR-3 is purportedly lighter, but it's still a fairly bulky headset at 980g. Luckily the XR-3 has a brand new headstrap that's much more adjustable. The major parts consist of a top strap to keep the headset up, and a rear strap that swoops down low to keep it balanced. Both have dials which you can turn to tighten them as needed. On top of that there's dials right near your temples which allow you to tilt the visor up or down without putting additional pressure on your brow or face. [caption id="attachment_103619" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Photo by Road to VR[/caption] All in all it feels like an improvement, and I especially like the ability to tilt the visor; everyone has different brow and cheek topology, and this should make the headset adjustable to a wider range of users. - - — - - Varjo is burning the candle at both ends. On one side, they're improving their hardware and delivering better visuals with each iteration. On the other side, they're reducing the cost of their headset to the point that it's becoming increasingly viable for more than just Fortune 500 companies. It'll be years until we see this kind of visual quality in a mainstream headset, but this glimpse shows not only that it's possible, but that it's definitely coming.